FastNed

Hello Tony, welcome to the Forum. I do not believe any of us posting here are homophobes or wish to intrude into anyones bedroom. Neither do we wish to classify anyone as some sort of second class person because of their sexual orientation but, in the rush for "Gay Rights", we do not wish to see our rights ignored either. For many of us, marriage is a religious rite and the tenets of our faith do not allow for same sex marriages. We firmly believe in the separation of church and state and because of what we have witnessed in other areas of contention, we are certain that unless we speak up now, in the near future some Court, Civil Rights or Human Rights Commission is going to order our Minister or Priest or Rabbi to perform a same sex "marriage" in violation of the dogma of our faith. One concept which has been advanced as a possible solution is to reserve the term "marriage" to religious ceremonies while the term "civil union" would be used for ceremonies performed by a Justice of the Peace, City/Town Clerk or whomever is so authorized to perform such a ceremony. The State and/or the citizens of each jurisdiction may specify the criteria - age and sex or whatever - for a civil union while each specific religion remains free to perform the rite under the tenets of that faith. This would maintain the separation of church and state and remove much of the opposition to the concept of "Gay Marriage". Unless an approach such as this is adopted, we have a formula here for civil unrest and civil disobedience. Do people really wish to start a religious war over this?

SirRiff: You are in desperate need of a new focus control - your thinking is too fuzzy! Way too fuzzy. Many of the problems you cite are either left in place untreated or made worse by fuzzy thinking "First World" activists who think they have some elitist right to dictate solutions for "Third" world problems. You make much about problems with food and water: 1) Food: Existing GM food products, i.e., "Yellow Rice" and others, can eliminate hunger throughout the World. What is preventing the spread of these food products is that very same "elite" bunch of activist idiots who have had great success in having these agricultural products banned in Europe. Absent a market for their exports, most of the places which would greatly benefit from the increased yield and nutrient content of GM foods, can not afford to loose their main source of foreign income. So they can't grow GM foods. 2) Water: The theoretical problem of Global Warming together with theoretical solutions requiring expenditures of 150 to 350 BILLION dollars per year (for just about forever) are touted by this self-same elite as "The Problem" of the World. With an expenditure of less than one years cost for this idiotic "problem", safe and adequate drinking water could be provided to everyone on this planet. But saving some poor family in a backwater third world country isn't as "romantic" as saving the world so you don't see these "elite" marching anywhere for safe and adequate water everywhere, do you? You then prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, that you just don't have a clue with the following: You believe we are involved in a War against Terrorism to reap "power and prosperity" ? You have a severe case of Cranial Impactum Rectumitis . We are in a war for our very right to exist as a free people against Islamic terrorists and you deplore that we don't meet your "humane" and "ethical" standards. Bite Me! We are involved in something which is very new while retaining elements which are quite ancient - the concept of a religious War. Welcome to the 21st Century.

Very much on target, Hugo, thank you for the information. Advocat, the Austrian Government prevented American troops from using the train from Germany to Italy to go to Iraq. They were within their rights to do so as the train had to cross Austrian territory and Austria has been a "Neutral" Country since WW II. Neither the people or government of America has any basis for complaint against Austria and you have heard none, have you? While post-modernists would have you believe that any "talk" which avoids war is legitimate, there are well established limits recognized under diplomatic usage. The French with their threats to block Turkish admission to the EU if America was allowed transshipment across Turkey passed beyond allowable diplomacy. The new Turkish government surrendered its virginity for a "French Kiss" and left its old friend, America, sitting at home without a date. Now the Turks, having waited and waited for another call from their French "Lover", realize that they were an easy one night stand and their old friend America now views them as someone who sold themselves for a few "Euro's". Pity! We are at War with France but we shall wage it the same way they did. Never in the public view. We people of America have our own direct way to respond to the French, we do not send bombs, we simply do not send dollars. With their moribund economy, within a few years, the loss of the American market and their shunning as a tourist destination will bring them to their knees. French suicidal stupidity is understandable in a way as they never have comprehended Americans. What is Canada's excuse?

Mod, while I agree that Canada's government did not set out to be an enemy to America, its actions went beyond naif to terminal stupidity. For whatever reason, the Cretin affiliated Canada with France with no knowledge of how far France was willing to go to 'oppose' America. To put it bluntly, the actions of France in pressuring Turkey to deny the right of armed passage to American forces went far beyond political opposition and were, in fact, a Causi Belli. That's right, their active interference with a military troop movement outside of the borders of France constituted an act of War. With the absence of a second front, America paid a higher price in casualties in the invasion of Iraq. Americans died as a result of French action in Turkey. Of course we will forget about it - sure we will. You are known by the company you keep.

KK, "Tempting", surely you jest - the motivating factors you mention, cheap labor and so for, are exactly what exist today. And no one is tempted; not only is the Rule of Law absent, the labor force is cheap but uneducated and illiterate and while there are some natural resources, the infrastructure to exploit them is non-existent. The thought that the UN could sponsor such a program would be funny if it were not a sick joke. Corruption is endemic in the UN and its organizations and it has been hijacked by Third World Nations. Rather than the Rule of Law, what exists today in Africa is the rule of the jungle. You have so-called Nations run by thieves, they plunder their own countries and either alone or with others join in plunder parties to raid and rape their neighbors. The UN and ECOWAS will not solve Liberia's problems as their leadership are also thieves and plunderers and are a major part of the problem, most certainly not part of the solution. A case could be made that occupation of Liberia could serve America's strategic interests but we would have to impose, in effect, a colonial occupation and make Liberia our military base for West Africa. We are talking a multi-generation occupation, establishment of a civil service, construction of an infrastructure beginning from just about zero, and, in brief, creating a civilized nation. It would be a thankless job, but that's no big deal since no one says "Thank You" to Americans anyway no matter what they accomplish but I am unconvinced that the terrorist potential in Africa justifies such an investment, at least not in the immediate future. The American vision for and of America is not that of an Imperial Power. We refuse to be the policeman for the world - The Sheriff has left the building! If, as and when a problem is so substantial that those who are so vocal about it are willing to lead the way, we are willing to contribute to the effort. When those who cry about the ills of the world demonstrate that they are willing to put themselves at the head of the line, then we will join with them. But we are more than tired of listening to those who would never put their money where their mouth is!

Pellaken, at best you are naif. The Saskatoon StarPhoenix has run Gay ads and Gay Personals. In 1999, it ran an ad which cited biblical quotations against homosexuality. Three gay men found it "hateful" that the bible had been quoted in this fashion so they filed a "Hate Speech" complaint with the Human Rights Commission. See here. Need I tell you the outcome?

Pellaken, you just touched upon what I suspect should be our approach to a solution to this "marriage" controversy. Now lets get candid about why this is such an explosive issue. Time after time, we have seen the claim of civil rights & other 'legal' rights used to push one of these issues way beyond anything that is reasonable. Many of us see this "marriage" issue ultimately being used to force the doors of our Churches open and being used to force our Ministers and Priests to perform acts contrary to the tenets of our faith. The State can not be used to force a change in our religious faith, not without a great deal of civil unrest and, at least here in America, a very real possibility of armed resistance. That is the reality and it is why there is serious talk of a constitutional amendment here in America. Western civilization, and thus our Nations were built on the Judeo-Christian ethos. Marriage, to a Jew, a Catholic or a Christian is a religious act and relationship and each of these religions has criteria/dogma which must be met if you wish a Rabbi, Priest or Minister to officiate. Non religious alternatives are available performed by Justices of the Peace, City/Town Clerks or whatever and until now, the ceremony has been called a "marriage". I believe we are now forced to define "marriage" as a religious union and create a "civil union" for all others. Those that claim this would have an inferior legal status can be answered with a simple Statute/Law that establishes that any legal reference to "Marriage" shall now by definition mean "Marriage and/or Civil Union". Trust me, the legalities of this situation are the easy part. Would this change the moral issues - absolutely not. But the State should not be used to impose anyone's moral views on others any more than the State can be used to force a change in the tenets of my faith. What other consenting adults wish to do in private is none of my business, what the State establishes as conditions for a civil union is a matter for the voters and people of each jurisdiction and if those of my faith believe it to be immoral, that is our personal, private religious right but others are free to hold different opinions. So you see, Pellaken, it is not a matter of homophobia but rather a question of my religious rights which I wish to preserve.

It is a good theoretical approach, KK but translation into a real life program appears to be next to impossible. Who will bell the cat? Who will be willing to face down the racist Black Leaders in Africa and their fellow travellers at the UN? In much of Black Africa, only 'blacks' can be citizens or be 'naturalized' or own real estate. Involvement by America in Africa could be a flash point in racial relations here and would be fertile ground for troublemakers in the extreme wings of each party. No one wants to go there. In truth, we have a younger generation which is growing up "tan" and inter-racial relationships and marriage are on the increase. The "melting pot" effect of America is final working where race is involved and we are becoming a better people for it. Going into Africa, even for the best of motives, would provide fuel to those politicians of "Race" and politicians of "Hate". And we don't want to go there either. Attempting to determine what exists in Liberia, I took a look at their Constitution. The original Constitution was based upon that of America and that was in force until 1980 when "President" Doe shot his way into power. The Peoples Constitution was 'adopted' in 1984 and it is a cute document; looks likes, sounds like but in reality, it creates a Constitutional Dictatorship. All the power is in the Executive and while the President is limited to two six year terms, it has the "Weimar" Emergency Clause, so in effect, you have a "President for Life". Some other cute provisions - which give an indication of what we face in Africa - only a Black (or Colored) can be a Citizen, either by birth or naturalization. Only a Black Citizen can own real estate and, only a Black Citizen who owns $25,000 in real estate can be President. Some other cute stuff but those are the big ones.

Well, RB, you state: These Nations have developed a non-western identity, absolute chaos. Are you saying we should leave them subject to gang warfare rather than interject ourselves into their historical imperative? You believe we are pretending to want to help them because of our capitalistic way of thinking. I believe you are on the wrong chapter in your little red book.

Very appropriate, Craig - for the long term. Right now, to use Liberia as an example thou, your thoughts would only add to the chaos. That is if anything could make these situations more chaotic. I am uncertain if this should continue in this general sort of post or transfer and go forward in the "Liberia" thread. Or just go ahead here and use Liberia as our object case. Whatt's your opinion - Craig, Greg, KK ?

The Family, the basic unit of our Western Culture is under attack by a coalition of radical feminists, gay rights advocates and (to be charitable) gullible politicians. Their goal has been hidden by misdirection and 'spun' by wordsmiths to be an issue of simple fairness and individual rights for Gays. The true objective is the destruction of the traditional marriage relationship and the related concept of "Family". The State is to redefine the concept of "Marriage" and "Family" under the guise of civil rights for individuals of this or that persuasion (or perversion, take your pick) and use the hammer of the Law with the stated intent of enforcing civil rights, to force our religious institutions to perform "marriage" ceremonies against the tenets of our various faiths. The State will force a revision of our religious dogma under the guise of 'civil rights'. That any North American politician believes this can be done without open civil and religious armed revolt is beyond belief. It is most likely that they are so concentrated in chasing this or that interest group for contributions and votes that they do not comprehend the complete agenda to which they give their support. By insisting on a concentration on relationships and rights, with no moral judgements allowed, they seek through misdirection and concentration on "civil rights' to destroy the basis of our society and erode and negate our religious freedoms. For those of you saying, "Oh no, that can't happen here" please read the Law Commission Report "Beyond Conjugality" which you can find HERE Whatever "Marriage" may mean to others, to me it is an act of my religion, the creation of a relationship in the eyes of God and one that is blessed under the religious dogma of my faith. Any politician who elects to interject himself into my Church to interfer with that relationship does so at his own risk. The State has the power to create and define civil relationships. Fine, feel free to create any such that you can find the votes to pass or, let the Courts create them. That the religious term marriage has been used to describe civil relationships does not and can not allow the State to dictate the dogma and practices of my religion or any other. Marriage is a religious rite and the State must keep its hands off! Consenting adults should be free to do whatever they wish in private. They have that right as I have a right to hold a moral opinion of their conduct. Neither I or anyone has the right to request that the State impose our religious moral views on any other but the obverse of that is also true: they can not use the State to force a revision of our religious beliefs and practices.

Hello KK, I think you are right but we all are going to have to shed a great deal of baggage, ideology etal, before we can come up with any solutions. First, let's get candid - I think this mess has less to do with "color" or "race" (excepting tribalism, see below) and more to do with the end of the Fifty year Cold War. During that period, everyone had to pick a side or have a sponsor. It guaranteed them access to aid, financial and military, as well as a "big brother" which, for the most part, protected them against outright invasion. Big Brother had an interest in keeping "their" regime in power so he would 'suggest' methods which would insure that the Country continued to function, in one fashion or another. Your Big Brother pulled the strings, controlled much of the money and military aid so his suggestions were followed, even when they were a bitter pill to swallow. With the end of the Cold War, the Soviet disappeared and America, with differing degrees of success, attempted to pull back. Instead of going around in circles here about motives, let's just accept that the CIS had no funds for foreign involvement and America withdrew for whatever reason. This is what happened and rather than get involved in a blame game, let us consider what we are facing and what might be solutions. Tribalism is a major curse upon Africa but it exists and must be factored into any solution. Compounding the problem, National Borders are not something which evolved internally but were imposed by outside powers and reflect either colonial conquest or a mapmaker somewhere drawing a line to establish a boundary. In place after place, these borders split tribes and/or include deadly enemies as part of the same nation. The frosting on the cake is what I would call "Colonial Baggage". A substantial number of existing leaders in Africa are racist - any 'black' leader must be protected from outside 'white' nations no matter how pathetic that leader might be. See Mugabe in Zimbabwe and the positions of Mbeki and Mandella of So. Africa. This has been taken to the extreme that they (African Leaders) recently proposed that outside aid just be handed over and they would decide for themselves where and how it would be spent; they would decide how effective the spending was; and, they would decide the amount needed in future contributions - talk about delusional! Any involvement by America will immediately become a major factor in the convoluted mix of domestic racial politics. The above, together with an attitude we could call "colonial guilt" makes it difficult if not impossible for a Western Democracy to do much beyond provision of financial aid in Africa. But the reality is that Africa is a bottomless pit where financial aid is concerned. Much of the money thrown into Africa lands in a Swiss or Franch bank. When it arrives at that Bank, it joins there funds plundered from the natural resources of Africa. These resources are being plundered by the politicians/rulers of their country of origin or, they are being taken in Plunder Parties. Many of the "Rebel" movements loose in Africa are no more than invasions sponsored by their neighbors with the intent of plundering the natural resources of the invaded country. And the latest twist is what I would call "Revenge Rebelions" which is what is facing President Taylor in Liberia. For years, Taylor has sponsored "Rebels" to plunder his neighbors and in response, two different Nations now sponsor LURD and MODEL, the two rebel factions loose in Liberia. There is little left in Liberia worth stealing, both of the rebel movements are intended to tie Taylor up within Liberia, keep him fighting for his own survival and if they can drive him from power and/or kill him that's a bonus. The people of Liberia are the victims of gang warfare and for the UN or ECOWAS to leave either Taylor or the Rebels in place is merely to decide what territory belongs to which gang. There is no possibility of any progress while Taylor remains in Liberia and if you believe he will leave when "Peacekeepers" arrive, could I interest you in some nice ocean front property I have for sale in Calgary? I do have thoughts on some possible solutions or perhaps, steps which might begin a solution and I will post them tomorrow after I tie them together a bit better.

Hello, Greg - Why do I suspect that on the subject of clan/tribal politics &/or warfare there is little that I could say that you would find new? I wonder, has anyone done a study on the Academic Community in those terms? Hmmmmm. But to get serious and back to this discussion, may I suggest that we have example after example of command economies right before us. From Sadaam and his socialist Ba-ath Party in Iraq, we can go next door to Assad Jr and his slightly different flavored Ba-ath Party. Mugabe in Zimbabwe and on and on and on. Unless and until you can find a re-incarnation of Martin Luther King, who do you put in charge? And please, do not suggest the UN, you are too well aware of their actual performance. A camel is a horse designed by the UN - and that's a UN success story. In an area such as the Congo, which has been folded, spindled and mutilated so many times by so many people, the command economy in a strong-mans hands may be the only viable option if that will work to keep the vultures off long enough for any recovery to work. Absent a volunteer Godfather such as a Canada or America, there may be no other way. I can not let pass one of your comments: This is a particular Western idea which dies quickly when you spend some time in a dirt-poor country or two. There, the average person spends 16 to 20 hours per day, seven days a week, working & attempting to survive - to generate an income of 50 to 100 per year! That dollar a day "slave wage" sneared at by some of us who live in the West, represents: a) 10/12 hours of safety and security while working; b)Work/employment where there is none; and, c) a weekly wage that equals a months pay. You go there and tell them they are being 'exploited' and they tell you to shut up and get out of their Country before you screw up a good thing!

Fairly correct, Hugo but before you can have an economic miracle, you must have peace, the rule of law and a respect for private property. Without these three preconditions, you can not have a life worth living, a community or a country. And please, no more from anyone about communism, marxism or socialism as a basis for a start for these countries. We have fifty to seventy-five years of experience which shows they do not work; too quickly, they become tools of oppression. In a more perfect world, perhaps but we are nowhere close to perfection and I wouldn't hold my breath. Let's look at Liberia and it is a graphic illustration of a descent into the stone age - brutal, barbaric and primitive - and that was before the rebels arrived. Liberia was founded by ex-North American slaves: Americos from America and Congos from the Caribbean (No, I don't know why the distinction). For about 130 years, they ruled Liberia to the exculsion of the other 95% of the population - the Tribals. They lacked the "FDR" Constitutional Ammendment (limiting a President to two terms) so their last President held power for some 30 odd years from the 40's til the late 70's. And then it all went to hell.... I doubt it's a coincidence that this happened around the end of the Cold War - this is the period when America began an attempt to go home; however belatedly, to mind its own business and stop proping up misfits on the theory that anything was better than a communist regime. Good idea, lousy delivery. Today, the players in Liberia are President Taylor, an Americo (or so I have read) a brutal thug, killer and Gang Lord - color him Latin and he would fit in So. America, Arabic and he's Sadaams brother, put him in the Balkins and he'd be right at home as another brutal dictator. It has nothing to do with color and everything to do with character. There are two rival "Rebel" groups, LURD and MODEL. Read street gangs from another tribe, same caliber of leadership and each is sponsored - given aid and arms, shelter and support by a neighboring Nation (different national sponsor for each group) not so much as part of the usual "Plunder Party" which is endemic to this West African region but more as a falling out among thieves. There truely is little left to steal in Liberia but the lives of the ordinary people who have nowhere to turn. The usual "Peacekeeping Settlement" in this area is to freeze everyone in place, force form a coaltion government, send the fighters back into the bush to wait and then, in a year or two, after the "Peacekeepers" have gone home to a victory parade or every worse, the Peacekeepers are put in between them with empty guns (see Slaughter of UN Peacekeepers in Congo) it turns back into "SSDD" - same stuff, different day. But it looks and sounds wonderful at the time! Now none of this is any surprise to anyone who has watched the UN and the EU for these last twenty years - this is their idea of "Peace". It is considered a success based upon the perceived sincerety of the effort, not the result. There is only one way there will be peace in Liberia. It requires that someone take over this mess and rebuilt Liberia. It is at least a generational task of nation building, it is a thankless and expensive job, it will generate an extreme amount of racial discord in America should we take on this task and last, but most certainly not least, it will be a "White" Nation invading "Black" Africa. The Sheriff has left the Building - I just hope President Bush remembers that!

Africa is in a rush to return to the Stone Age because of tribalism. That, together with human greed is the root cause. But, of course, it is the fault of Western civilization for introducing the concept of "Nation" and drawing those lines on maps. The we could discuss the evils which have resulted from the concept of "Maps".

Pellaken, you may add our qualifications for election to the position of President to the same list as Kyoto and the I.C.C.. The reason is something called the United States Constitution, you have heard of that, eh? As a wannabe Politician, with strong opinions on various subjects (as is your right) living next door to America, you owe it to your future profession to know how difficult it is to ammend the American Constitution. It is not an accident but rather is designed to be exceedingly difficult to do for obvious reasons. If you take an hour or two to research the process, you will have more knowledge of this than the majority of politicians in North America. And that includeds American politicians, as well. We have a similiar controversy ongoing down here right now over the recall election in California. If you wish to read/hear idiotic commentary from uninformed people, just tune in on this debate. Fact: in 1911, the people of California adopted an ammendment to their State Constitution which established a procedure for the recall/removal from office of their Governor. This is distinctly seperate from the, let us call them, criminal reasons for removal from office, i.e., morals crimes, illegal acts and so forth. Now everyone is entitled to an opinion of the wisdom of such an act but under our system of government, "We the People" establish who may hold an office and if a procedure will exist to remove them other than by scheduled elections. That is our basic right as a free people - unlike certain other countries, we are not willing to be considered the unwashed & illiterate underclass who must be guided by an elite. This is the American way and it suits us just fine.

The entire scenario upon which Kyoto is based is derived from computer modeling. Scientist after scientist have shown that the assumptions used in these models did not include data on many things known to effect the climate. It appears that more was left out than was included. And yet, SirRiff, you state: Perhaps, and perhaps not. We simply do not know enough yet to reach that conclusion. But what we do know is that Kyoto is a deliberate act of economic warfare, directed at the West (North America to be specific) intended to force a massive redistribution of wealth and cripple the economy of North America. But not to worry, Canada has shown it is a good "European" and signed on to Kyoto. And as Canada throws its wealth down the drain attempting the impossible, and its costs go through the roof, it can just raise the price of everything it sells to America so "feeling good and being European" won't really cost Canada anything. Right, SirRiff ?

Well, SirRiff, to use your own words, Canadians must then be terrorists. You (Canada) have done business for generations with America. In fact, your entire economy depends upon sales to the U.S. - a terrorist nation in your terms. Pot meet kettle. From your statements, because America does not immediately lash out at every Nation connected to terrorism activities, we are somehow damned. You really need to hit the books and learn something about strategy - the world is a great deal more complex than you are willing to consider. A Jihad has been declared against America by followers of the religion of Islaam. The choice offered to us is to convert to Islaam, submit as slaves, or die. Our response is: "None of the above!" We have choices in our response to this attack and Jihad against us: 1) We can declare a Crusade, to oppose their Jihad, and wipe the believers of Islaam from the face of the World. 2) We can perform triage upon Islaam, excise their fanatics and 'motivate' them to discover their Luther to reform/revise their religion so that they will live in peace with those who hold other beliefs. I am sure that if President Bush knew you were available to advise him, he would dispense with all those nasty Americans who believe that America has a right to survive as the Land of the Free. But please, instead of just looking backwards and pontificating, do share with all of us your solutions to this minor problem. Share your wisdom and solutions with us, please do.

No Mod, you didn't stay out of it. Your Leader, Chretien, backed ChIraq and France and opposed us to the bitter end. It went beyond 'merely' being a fair weather friend to active opposition, providing aid and comfort to our enemy. You think Americans have changed their view about Turkey in all of this, well Canada is ahead of them on the list of Nations and people formerly presumed to be our friends.

Mod, we have a basic disconnect here. Terrorism is an act of war not merely criminal activity. Out of concerns for our individual freedom (and based upon bitter past experience) we hobble our police and prosecution and the catch-phrase is "rather 100 guilty go free than one innocent person be convicted." We (us citizens) have made the choice that this is the way we wish to live among ourselves. And it works - among ourselves! Terrrorists, to put it mildly, do not share our values or our culture. Our police are not trained and do not have the tools to counter such activity on a world-wide basis. This is why we have a military - to meet threats beyond the capacity of our normal law enforcement procedures. And the military do not and can not operate under "police procedures" - they are brought in when the situation is beyond the capacity of the criminal justice system. War is not simply a criminal matter, it is war. It's apples and oranges. On the intelligence "failure" - no one who has not been involved in intelligence matters has any concept of the "signal to noise ratio". The spy who sits next to the Leader with a tape recorder is so rare as to be almost fictional. What you get on a daily take is several thousand clues. One will be that the terrorist plan to hijack some planes. Another will be that the terrorists are taking lessons on driving tractor trailer trucks. A third will be that so-and-so, known to have met with a terrorist sometime in the past, has just ordered all kinds of literature on crop-dusting aircraft. All three of these are real examples of the intelligence take prior to 9 - 11. Shortly after 9 -11, all crop dusting ceased for about a month in the States (& perhaps Canada) as it was thought this could be an inovative method for a CBR attack and it had to be checked out. A roommate of someone connected to the attack was found to have taken tractor trailer driving lessons and I'm quite certain records of every school were examined to check that out - but this all happened after the fact. Hindsight is 20/20 - when the raw data is re-examined after the fact, people are quick to say - "see, there - you had a tip they were going to hijack planes, you should have known....." "There has been an intelligence failure!" The problem is not lack of a clue, it's too damn many clues, incomplete ones, from sources of uncertain reliability and the problem is to determine what is fact and what is fiction. HUMINT, intelligence from people can be garbage or gold and it is not easy, in advance, to determine which it is.

SirRiff, you express "your" view of history while ignoring some inconvenient facts - because they don't fit your preconception that America is evil. In 1953, during the Cold War against Communism, we supported a Coup in Iran against a communist Prime Minister. We did so to frustrate the imperialistic ambitions of the U.S.S.R. We funded Afghanistinian Patriots in their resistance and defeat of the U.S.S.R. which had invaded and occupied their country. Damn right & proud of it! Explain exactly what is "illegal" about that? The Iranian Theocracy which had seized our Embassy staff in violation of every Law of Diplomacy and comety between Nations was at War with Iraq. Of course we helped the enemy of our enemy - we have long memories! President Bush is an exception to the rule, he says what he means and means exactly what he says. If you wish to know where America is going and what will happen over the next twenty years or so, you do need to study at least two of his speaches - the State of the Nation Address delivered after 9 - 11 and the one he made at West Point. The World is at an historic decision point: you are with us for freedom or with the Theocrats for repression. There is no middle ground and those who wish to hedge their bets by sitting on the fence will find the result of that is a rather painfull impaction. If you do not know the difference between tactics and strategy, you had best learn it. We intend to preserve the Freedoms of America but if we can, we do not wish to destroy the economy of the remainder of the World as we do so, neither do we wish to generate a gratuitous body count in the process. For the moment, at least, we are taking Islaam at its word that our enemies are but a radical fragment of that religion which is why the term "crusade" was quickly eliminated from usage. We now have a base, Iraq, in the midst of our enemies and should the Islamic fanatics in OPEC attempt to destroy the economy of the West, we are positioned to oppose that. The family of Ibn Saud which has supported and funded the nutbag Wahhabbi radicals will now change its practices or the Hashimite Dynasty will resume its role as Protector of the Holy Sites of Islaam - we are now up close and personal to all those fat & rich Saudi Princes and they are begining to comprehend that there is a cost to be paid for their radical theology and support for those who wish to kill us. Korea has been left on the back burner because every immediate solution carries the cost of several million South Korean lives - lives we do not wish to sacrifice while any other option may work. Carefully note that our actions to date are based upon the presumption that there will not be another 9 - 11, that we will be able to prevent one. It has been made quite plain through-out the World that if a weapon of mass destruction is let loose in America, the Nation of origin of that weapon bears equal responsibility and our response will be ugly and MAD. The responsibility of President Bush is to preserve and protect America and its citizens - trust me, SirRiff, you and the World do not want to learn how ugly our response will be should weapons of mass destruction be used against us. You have no idea of the anger and rage that exists in America over 9 - 11. We will not forgive, we will not forget, we will not "get over it". Should there be another attack, we will triage the World if need be. We do not want to go there but we will if we must. America will not go quietly into the night.

Mod, might I suggest that the fact that the American & British Military went thru the Iraqi Forces like castor oil does not constitute proof that Iraq was not a threat to its neighbors. The military forces of America, Israel & England are one or two generations ahead of the remainder of the World. There simply is no military in the World that can stand up to any one of them never mind two combined. We are living through a period where traditional patterns of international relations are evolving into something else - we know the journey has begun but no one is sure where it will end. We are engaged in a religious war which transcends national borders and traditional alliances. The concept that war is an activity for Nation States, the concepts of diplomacy to control relations between these Nations and indeed, even the Laws of War we find are passe and must evolve into something which works to keep the peace. Perhaps pre-emption must be the answer - if you make it plain that you mean to kill me and mine, must I wait for the first deaths to be certain that you mean what you say? Perhaps we have reached the point where talk is not cheap, it may be fatal.

Perhaps not, Pellakin but a good case can be made that the Children of the British Empire do live on and attempt to follow the best of its traditions. And the point of Hugo's statement was that the Empire survived another 100 years after its deficit reached that percentage. Very well said, Neal F & Hugo. Mod, one of the reasons its called a tax cut for the rich is that almost 50 % of Americans get nothing from the cut. The small catch is, thou, that those people are not paying anything in taxes in the first place. How can you reduce their taxes below zero? Your other points were: Jacksonian America understands the math of combat despite the media attempt to turn Iraq into Vietnam. There is no bag limit on terrorists in Iraq and while Americans bitterly regret every casualty, we understand that Iraq is flypaper - "bring 'em on!" We Americans do not understand why the rest of the World does not understand that Iraq is but a Battle in the War against Terrorists. A great deal of political BS was spread in an attempt to create cover for Tony Blair, at the UN and in England plus intelligence gathering is a gray foggy practice, full of uncertainty - that the media and Democrats are making so much of this simply demonstrates how out of touch they are with middle-America. For Iraq, think D-Day and a Beachead in enemy territory. The deficit is a paltry percentage compared to that of WWII. The tax break issue is another attempt to stir up class warfare in America and it will not fly when we are joined, rich and poor alike and determined to kill our enemy. The economy is well able to survive without meddlesome politicians messing it up and the President is correctly focused on external enemies. "Turning World opinion against the US" - that's a feature, not a bug! The more the usual suspects "whine" about what he is doing, the more his numbers go up. The "elite" get all atwist over this but not most of America. Could President Bush loose a bid for re-election - my crystal ball is no better than anyone else's but it will take some big time mistakes to loose. I think democratic fratricide is close to hand and I suspect you will see Hillary in late touted as the only candidate who can draw from middle-America. If she believes he can be beat, she will not want to wait until 2012 to run. We are years away from success or defeat in our war against terrorists and I do not think America is ready to throw in the Towel and elect a democrat who will "feel their pain" - we are just beginning to make it painful.

Hello SirRiff, some good thoughts there. To be 17 and sent somewhere with people waiting to kill you sucks and it's even worse when you realize you must kill others if you are to survive. To retain any sanity in such a situation, you must believe that those you have grown up to respect, your parents, elders, the leaders of your country do value you and would not put you there casually or carelessly. Killing people is not "plays well with others", it does not get easier with repetition and it is a "skill" I would rather not have acquired. It is sometimes necessary but it ain't easy. I have somehow survived to the point where I am now one of those "elders" and I have some damn tough criteria on placing another 17 year old American kid where I once stood, scared spitless. To take Emerson out of context: "These are not my poor." Why should our children be sent there to die for them? I agree that life must suck in most of Africa, and then there is Burma, North Korea, China - I have even heard a rumour that agents of the French International Conspiracy took over the government of Canada twenty-five years ago and things there are also pretty bad - where is the line drawn on "Humanitarian" intervention? You ask: I must respond to this by saying that we are talking apples and oranges here. Military Intervention is a formalized hold-up - it is puting a gun to someones head and saying "stick 'em up!" It is the use of armed might to force others to do as we wish with the very real threat that we will kill them if they don't. We can not gloss over this by claiming "humanitarian" motives. This is the next to last step of civilized activity and while it is sometimes a necessity, there needs be serious consideration of the consequences before we take this step. Lets be quite up front about all of this. Humanitarian intervention means we are sending in troops to kill people. Are you willing to have Canadian troops at our side as we do this? That the UN, the French and regional African Leaders all are urging we do this makes it quite suspect in my mind . Past performance of these people makes their motives questionable, to say the least

In response to a private question, I will list my opinion of the necessary criteria for an American Military Intervention in Liberia or elsewhere. Candidly, were it my call we would remain at home except for a response to a serious threat to Americans & America. My position however is held by only a hard-core of Americans, perhaps 15 to 20 % I would estimate so unless and until more Americans concur with my position, we are going to be dragged into these situations. I can not resist mentioning though that the majority of those calling for "humanitarian" interventions have never served in the Military but are so very quick to send someone else off to fight for "their" humanitarian values. 1. The lives of our Military Forces are precious and should not be lightly risked absent a clear and compelling national interest. 2. The Sheriff has left the building - we are neither the World's policeman or its conscience. Correcting the evils of the World is not our responsibility. 3. The National Interest to be served must be clear and compelling - if it can not be expressed in 100 words or less, it's most likely political BS. 4. Military intervention must be followed by civil intervention. If we are unwilling to invest whatever term of years is required to install a democratic system, we should mind our own business. Once we invest those years, our departure should be with the clear understanding that we will return if democracy is overthrown. 5. In the event of a multi-party intervention, under no circumstances may the Rules of Engagement be defined by any but American Leaders. All Forces involved must operate under our R.O.E. without exception. My starting point on this was an recent article in National Review by John O'Sullivan which you can find HERE. Down South here, the most vocal proponents of a Liberian intervention are those who were dead set against intervention in Iraq. I am curious to see if that holds true in this Forum.